Disciplinary Hearing of Doctor Who Won't Prescribe Pill Open to Public

Dr. Dawson Requests Prayers and Letters of Support

BARRIE, ON, February 22, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Dr.
Stephen Dawson, the family doctor who is in danger
of losing his medical licence over his refusal to
prescribe the birth control pill to unmarried women
clarified his position in an interview with LifeSite
last night. Dr. Dawson told LifeSite that the
initial coverage in the Barrie Examiner suggested he
may compromise on the matter. He clarified: "Under
no circumstances will I compromise. I would rather
lose my licence."

He said that he would not apologize for refusing
to offer the pill to unmarried women but would
apologize for the perhaps "overzealous manner in
which I presented my case to these women initially."

Dr. Dawson told LifeSite he was pro-life and thus
would never offer abortions, or the abortifacient
morning-after pill. But as he did not feel the birth
control pill to be abortifacient, (despite its
ingredients and operation being very similar to the
morning-after pill) he would not prescribe the pill
to unmarried women or Viagra to unmarried men since
by doing so he would be promoting sex outside of
marriage.

"Honoring the Hippocratic Oath I feel that I must
tell the patient about these concerns otherwise I am
advocating a treatment that would (spiritually)
harm," said Dr. Dawson. Dr. John Patrick, Director
of Public Policy of the Christian Medical and Dental
Society (CMDS) of Canada echoed these concerns to
LifeSite. Apart from all the medical and
psychological concerns over abortion and
abortifacient drugs, Dr. Patrick explained thatphysicians with a faith in God approach situations
of moral concerns from a radically different
perspective than do physicians of no faith. Dr.
Patrick compared the viewpoint of an abortionist to
that of a Christian doctor. An abortionist when
confronted with a woman deciding to have an abortion
sees a patient who is has chosen the least
troublesome of undesirable alternatives. However,
faced with the same situation, the Christian doctor
would see two patients before him, one of whom is
going to die and the other who isputting herself at risk of eternal death. The CMDS
is following Dr. Dawson's case closely and is
willing to intervene in the case on his behalf.

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) is also
interested in the case. CCRL Vice President Phil
Horgan told LifeSite: "It is important to cite the
principle from Canada's first case on religious
freedom (by Supreme Court Chief Justice Dickson
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at 336-7) in R v. Big M Drug
Mart Ltd.: "Freedom means that, subject to such
limitations as are necessary to protect public
safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be
forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or
his conscience."

"If Dr. Dawson has been charged with failing to
meet the overall moral and professional standard of
care, will the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario suggest that morality and professionalism
are distinct? If not, what morality are they
proposing to impose?", asked Horgan.

Dr. Dawson requested prayer and letters of
support. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario told LifeSite that the disciplinary hearing
on Dr. Dawson's case to be held April 16-19 at 80
College St. in Toronto are open to the public.